University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Liberty, Equality — And Fraternities

By DOUGLAS FRIEDMAN

—Ed.)

As Rush enters its third week
the first cries of anger will be heard
at the dormitories, as fraternities
stage their first serious "ball
boxes", or, euphemistically,
membership sessions, and the
archaic tradition of excluding those
deemed unworthy begins again. In
recent years, as the student
revolution has progressed, the
fraternity system has been
lambasted for the apparent
exclusion and racism which the ball
boxes foster and maintain. Much of
this criticism is well-founded.
However, there is a difficult
problem involved which deserves
proper consideration.

The University of Virginia is
behind the times when compared to
other state universities in the North
and the West. The social revolution
which swept Columbia about five
years ago is just beginning to effect
Mr. Jefferson's university. As an
integral part of this environment,
the fraternity system is also several
years behind the times.

Viable System

So far, not one house has folded
for lack of interest or dissension.
Not one house has succumbed to
the numerous pressures which
ruined stronger fraternity systems
at other schools. Virginia has
become an exception to what was
once the rule. Her thirty-odd
houses still constitute a viable
fraternity system.

However, liberal voices have
charged fraternities with racism and
exclusion. At Virginia, these voices
are just beginning to sound like a
crowd because for so long they
were lonely, sporadic cries. The
fraternity system may or may not
respond. To survive in the long run,
it must say something.

Obviously, racism is a problem
in any house. Among any 35 or 40
men there are bound to be several
bigots. Most houses on the Grounds
operate on a low ball system. Some
adhere to a one-ball system. Others
use a percentage system where a
certain per cent of the brotherhood
must cast negative votes to ball a
rushee. Still others use a progressive
system where a decreasing number
of negative votes is required as
Rush goes on.

Minority Control

At any rate, the point is that as
things stand now, a handful of men
can set a racist policy for any
fraternity, even though the
overwhelming majority of that
fraternity may not be racist.
Condemnation of the system itself
on these ground is justified, though
most of the members themselves
may be innocent of the charge.

Fraternalism is a difficult thing
to assess. How can one really
determine what fraternalism means
to so many different people in so
many different houses? For
simplicity, it is convenient to
assume the broadest, most basic
definition: fraternalism is the spirit
of brotherhood, a concept of
friendship among men who are
working and living together,
hopefully seeking a goal, sometimes
brotherhood itself. This is an old
axiom, and it is purely idealistic.
Yet, believe it or not, many
fraternity men adhere to this
doctrine and they want to feel the
spirit of brotherhood.

In the past, fraternalism and
racism combined to dominate
membership sessions. As more and
more criticism was directed at
fraternities, some houses sought a
more liberal tradition to build
upon. Physical hazing was
eliminated and pledge programs
were enlightened and restructured.
Houses also began to seek outlets in
the community with service
projects, and it was soon possible to
pledge and still get good grades.
The change was gradual; but it was
definite. In the process more
liberal-minded men pledged and the
conservative label was inappropriate
for many houses.

Yet membership sessions remain
the basic institution of any
fraternity. Though the brotherhood
changed, the system of acceptance
did not. The anachronism is evident
at any ball box, as liberalism and
fraternalism come head to head.
Either a man assumes a liberal
standpoint and does not ball
anyone, or he assumes a fraternal
position, and balls men on the basis
of brotherhood. Admittedly, the
fraternal standpoint is exclusive,
but the ideal of brotherhood offers
many opportunities which make
college life more meaningful. The
purist sense of fraternity allows for
no discrimination on any level, but
a certain amount of realism must
remain-everyone will never get
along with everyone.

Consequently, such an argument
is formidable within a fraternity,
although, observers may find it
noxious, the ideal to which it
aspires is admirable in any
circumstance. The problem, today,
is that a bigoted brother can use
the shield of fraternalism to ball
any rushee. He can claim that he
just won't get along with the
particular candidate, and may even
admit that he couldn't be close to a
black fraternity brother. This is
almost checkmate. No fraternity
man can make light of such an
argument, but if fraternity is to
survive, such things must be
resolved. The membership
requirements must be softened: the
ball system must be weakened.

Naive Pledges

Many fraternity men join a
house naive to the racism and
exclusion which exist. It often
takes two or three years for a man
to reach his own conclusions and to
find his own set of values. A
fraternity man who is disgusted
with sickening membership sessions
and who firmly believes that
exclusiveness is out of date, is a
man without a country. His college
life has already been channeled
through the fraternity. If he
deactivates where can he go? It takes
a lot of guts to change a life-style at
college. It is easier to stay active for
one more year than to drop out. In
addition, many men simply can not
make the choice between liberalism
and fraternalism.

An Experience

Racism exists in most houses on
the Grounds, as it does in many
communities across the nation.
Unfortunately, this policy is often
formulated by only a small
minority who use the ideal of
brotherhood to hide their bigotry.
Fraternity can be a rewarding and
gratifying experience. However,
until racism can be overcome, it is
an experience which is terribly
lacking in breadth and is
considerably outmoded.
Fraternities must reassess their ball
systems, otherwise the few will
strangle the many, and there will be
no brotherhood left for anyone.